. as an american express cardmember you can expect some help. but what you might not expect, is you can get all this with a prepaid card. spends like cash. feels like membership. good morning from new york. i'm steve kornacki. the u.s. will double its aid to the syrian opposition and kerry was speaking with foreign ministers and the officials in colorado said five snowboarders were killed in avalanche. massachusetts governor patrick said last night that the accused boston marathon bomber is in critical but stable condition. still in no shape to talk to authorities. newly released police infrared

1r video shows when tsarnaev was hiding in a boat friday night. after police rushed to the scene after tip from the resident that found him there. at the london marathon this morning, runners observed a moment of silence from the victims of monday's bombings in boston. and last night hundreds turned out for a vigil to commemorate the week's final fatality. 26-year-old m.i.t. police officer sean collier who was shot and killed thursday night in the line of duty. boston has never in memory had a week as trying as tragic and as nerve racks, as confusing and as sad and as terrifying as this past one. which is what made this scene at fenway park yesterday so awesome. >> it doesn't say red sox on our jerseys. it says boston. we want to thank you, mayor menino, governor patrick, the whole police department, for the great job that they did this

past week. [ bleep ] city. and nobody is going to dictate our freedom. >> that, if you don't know, is david ortiz. he is better known as big papi and expressing his determination in the determination of more than 600,000 other bostonians to reclaim their city and reclaim their lives. his blunt resilience is the essence of boston's spirits. why i love the city and it is why in more normal times fans around the country relish when their team beats a boston team. in scenes like the one in fenway are playing out all over boston this weekend. celebrating their own survival and city's survival. they are celebrating the fact that there has never been more about boston that's worth celebrating than there is right now. which in its own way is amazing because it wasn't that long ago that boston was a very different place. let's go back to april of 1985.

the third monday of the month. it was a normal ho-hum workday across the country except in massachusetts where it was a holiday called patriots day or just marathon monday. it wasn't much of a race that day. the winner was a 31-year-old named jeff smith. he set a sluggish pace and ended up crossing the finish line with one of the slowest times ever recorded by a boston victor. it is not like the competition was nipping at his heels. so far ahead was smith that when he cramped up in the homestretch, he was free to stop and walk across the finish line. he probably had time for a nap. smith's nearest challenger was more than five minutes behind him. five minutes. that is the definition of a lousy marathon. there is a reason why it was so lousy in 1985. the boston marathon back then was dying institution. in its heyday it had been one of the premier races in the world. the ad vent much recreational running in the 1907s spurred a proliferation of marathons all over america, sapping boston of the prestige. other cities started about a

baiting run wers prize money. boston, stubborn as ever, stuck to tradition. you got beef stew. free beef stew. but still, beef stew. elite runners began opting out and field started to dwindle and people stopped caring. the decline of the boston marathon was a metaphor for the whole city. in the decades after world war ii, the nickname came to feel like a cruel joke. 800,000 people lived in the city in 1950. by 1908 the number was down to just 562,000. drop of 30%. residents, mainly white, went to the suburbs. it became less safe. 1982 study of america's largest cities gave boston the worst possible score in three categories. distress, decline, and disparity. around every corner it seemed was another blow to civic pride. even when things went well it came with a catch. take the celtics. they won three nba titles in the

1980s. but not everyone was celebrating. if you walked through boston's black neighborhoods back then, you were more likely to see a gold magic johnson jersey than a green larry bird one. that was because of the racial strife bedeviled boston for decades. for anyone in the 1950s and 1960s, boston was the counter example of dixie. federal judge ordered bussing to remedy school segregation and scared kids from roxbury where met at south boston high by enraged locals. hurling rocks and spewing slurs. protest lasted for months. ted kennedy came to survey the scene and was greeted by a effigy of his own likeness. the city had its own george wallace who channelled the resentment ofs of white ethnic boston for campaigns of the school board, city council, members of congress, slogan, you know where i-stand. in 1989, a young doctor was driving home through roxbury with his pregnant wife and a black man stopped them at gunpoint ask shot them. mother and baby were killed and the husband, charles stewart, barely survived. his story terrified the city.

if something so awful and random could happen to charles and carol stewart, well, was anyone safe? politicians demanded answers and police arrest ad suspect. but there was a catch. charles stewart had made it up. all of it. he was actual lie the one that killed his wife. he just figured the easiest way to get away with it was to say black guy had done it. for a while everyone with any power believed him. you could feel generations of abject frustration in the black community in boston boiling over. >> they showed to us an insidious form of racism by being so easily convinced that a black man would indiscriminately attack a white couple and kill a pregnant woman. >> i have had enough! this community has had enough! mayor flynn is not going to tell us what's going to be good for us! we collectively are going to tell you what is good for us! >> that was boston just barely over 20 years ago. boston i knew from as far as a

kid saferly tucked away in suburbia is the boston find myself thinking about this week. because it is a city that just doesn't exist anymore. crime is down today. way down. people are moving back in. property values are up. neighborhoods are more diverse. no more combat zone. the art i have underground replace bid green space and unobstructed views. tensions are evaporating. groups that were marginalized finally have a seat at the table. when i was a kid the top vote getter in city council elections would be a guy named dapper o'neill. albert dapper o'neill. he was a cultural reactionary who cheerfully belittled gays and feminists. in the most recent election two years ago the candidate for the first time a woman of color. patrick who grew up on the south side became governor of masses in a 2006. while winning south boston. and he won it again four years later. oh, and the marathon, it is back to being a world class event. once again, it is a metaphor for

the city. except now it is a symbol of boston's stunning modern reinvention. that is what made marathon monday that -- that's what made marathon monday a great holiday. a day for residents from all neighborhoods and ages and classes and races to celebrate just how far their city has come. it is a day for everyone in the suburbs to feel jealous of what they are missing. that is what made the finish line such an inviting target for the bombers this week. boston is honoring those who were killed and they won't and can't be forgotten. nor will those that survive with serious wounds, physical and mental. you can see the city rally. returning with defiancdefiance. it is amazing how far boston has come in the last generation and as sad as this week has been it is exciting to imagine what the future still holds for the hub of the universe. i want to bring in robert costa, washington, d.c., editor for national review. head of msnbc political analyst joan walsh, author of "what's the matter with white people."

editor-at-large at salon.com. we have heather herbert, executive director of national security network. behar, legal director for constitutional rights. thanks for joining us. i was trying to think of where to start. it is just -- you know, this is our first time on the air since, you know, in the week since we were last on the air, we had the bombings, we had, you know, had -- friday night and the -- suspect being brought into custody. we now have the issues springing up about okay, where does boston go from now? where does the legal system go from now? i thought the best place to start is go around the table and ask you to process the week. how are you -- heather, we will start with you. >> i wouldn't start with where that wonderful montage left off. someone who spent a fair amount of time in the boston that was. just to really drive home the point you made. it is exactly that vision of a vibrant, multicultural america at ease with itself that made a tempting target. what we -- what we are p. you know, we are still passing the test, i think, as a society

about whether we can go on being that kind of america. and, you know, the thing that i think i would add to what you said is what a wonderful vision it was of how boston responded to the attacks. where there were some unfortunate incidents of folks in their frustration and anger going after muslims, community came out to support them, interfaith vigils. my dad -- my dad was broadcasting red sox games as a high school kid 60 years ago. the idea that the face of the boston red sox the face of the whole city, is a guy named david ortiz, you know, it just -- such an achievement for what american unity means and if we can pull ourselves out of the horrible morass of ugly tweets we saw this week and take that as as what we go forward with as a society then, unpleasantness we went through this weekend. especially what people in boston went through this week may actually do something good for us as a country.

>> my reaction is to, like others, express outrage about these heinous crimes and offer like others support and condolences to the victims and their families for this heinous crime. but what i want to stress amidst a lot of calls for treating the accused as enemy combatants, drone strikes, what happened, as heinous as it was, was a crime. and like past heinous crimes and regrettably like potentially future heinous crimes, but it is not an act of war and our legal system under the constitution can deal with the accused and whatever issues arised without having to resort to suggestions that these people should be enemy combatants or transferred to guantanamo or use extra judicial processes that to me

represent a step back. and not the sort of hopefulness and optimism that this montage displays. >> lot of issues there. we will get to as the show unfolds. >> like the whole country i was grip bid what was happening. unbelievable week to be following news and working in the news. i think your opening essay on boston -- i grew up in philadelphia. i have a real preference from what -- the city. i grew up outside of. i think everyone this week felt like a red sox fan and felt like they were from boston. i'm interested in this post-catching the criminals era. what happens in capitol hill. what happens in congress. i think this is going to have an impact. i'm not sure how much. i think that's something that will be discussed today. is the gun debate going to come back? on immigration, are republicans and others going to really push to maybe slow down the immigration reform legislation? and i think there are a lot of open questions. even sequestration. are they going on put back funding for defense, for national security, for the justice department, to try to deal with bomb threats.

and i think these are all of these things, you never king predict in politics what will happen. beyond the human resilience, we have seen in boston, and -- in the scenes in boston just so captivating, there is a political angle here. after the fact. and i think that's where we have to -- what we have to pay attention to. >> yeah. robert is right. we are going to see a lot of political ramifications but to get back to your gorgeous montage, it would be tragic if what came out of all of that unity and what came out of one of the -- one of the cradles of liberty, philadelphia has claim to it, too, is less liberty and -- more fear and less tolerance of diversity. there is a beautiful picture of an african-american mother and daughter leaving flowers on the doorstep of the family of martin richard in dorchester. i know i'm not saying it correctly with a boston accent. you know, given the history of race relations there, was a very moving symbol of exactly what you were talking about. it would be particularly

horrible if after all of that triumph would turned around and made this an occasion for immigrant bashing and taking away people's rights. >> well, there are a lot of issues that just were raised here about politics. and about where we are going to be going in terms of the legal system and have time we are going to get to that. before we do that, though, we are going to have a report on the latest on the investigation of the boston marathon bombings and that will be next. protein b, with simple, real ingredients, like roasted peanuts, creamy peanut butter, and a rich dark-chocolate flavor, plus 10 grams of protein, so it's energy straight from nature to you. nature valley protein bars. i am a lash addict. i can't get enough. the only thing stopping me? fear of clumps. [ gasps ] until now. meet new covergirl clump crusher. big volume mascara with a brush designed to crush. now, i can load up my lashes to the extreme. 200% more volume.

zero clumps. this is a lash addict's dream. new clump crusher from easy, breezy, beautiful, covergirl. from capital one... boris earns unlimited rewards for his small business. can i get the smith contract, please? thank you. that's three new paper shredders. [ boris ] put 'em on my spark card. [ garth ] boris' small business earns 2% cash back on every purchase every day. great businesses deserve unlimited rewards. read back the chicken's testimony, please. "buk, buk, bukka!" [ male announcer ] get the spark business card from capital one and earn unlimited rewards. choose 2% cash back or double miles on every purchase every day. told you i'd get half. what's in your wallet?

[ male announcer ] book ahead and save up to 20 percent at doubletree.com, so you can sit back, relax and enjoy. doubletree by hilton. where the little things mean everything.

we are bringing in michael isikoff who is in boston for the latest on the investigation into the boston marathon bombings. >> reporter: good morning. >> michael, what can you tell us this morning? >> reporter: we could be learning more as early as this

morning. federal prosecutors have been preparing criminal charges to file against the surviving 19-year-old suspect. that's what we would normally get. we are told this is not an indictment but a criminal complaint backed up by an affidavit from an fbi agent that would lay out some of the government's evidence against tsarnaev. this is the kind of thing where you get -- they want to tie him directly to the bombing and want to what evidence they have. we could be seeing information about where -- how the bomb was made and where the parts were purchased, where the brothers got their guns. all of that is the kind of thing that you would see in an affidavit. we have been waiting for and we were told we were going to get it yesterday. and last night we were told likely would be coming this morning. so we are all waiting to see that. >> there's been a lot of attention paid to the fact miranda rights were not immediately read to him.

governor patrick said in the opening, said last night, the suspect is not in condition to talk at this moment. is there any indication how long they can go before having to read miranda rights to him if they are going to get the chance to interrogate him without the warning, without access to a lawyer? >> reporter: a very good question. one that i think is likely to be litigated. now what the justice department is saying that they want to use this special high-value interrogation team to question him without reading him his miranda rights, under the public safety exception. and the -- question and that has been defined as 48 hours. they have 48 hours to question him before they read him his rights. now, the aclu and the federal public defenders office here in boston which says -- said yesterday they expect to represent tsarnaev. they are challenging that and

saying that they -- the government may be stretching it here. and, frankly, actually, the longer this goes on, the longer that he's hospitalized and -- unable to talk, could weaken the government's case that they immediately need this information from tsarnaev to protect the public. the public safety exception. because, you know, the -- the basis of that argument would be that there might be bombs outside that are threatening the safety of the public in boston and they need to know where it is. the longer it goes off and no bombs go off it may be the harder to make the case they immediately need that information under the public safety exception. >> michael isikoff, thank you so much for that update. there's -- a lot in what michael just said, i think, to think about in the -- to set this up. the public safety exception to the miranda rights was basically established by the supreme court

almost 30 years ago. where it gets complicated is that the obama administration a couple of years ago created the memo for the fbi that basically said not only do you have the immediate public safety exception where you think there's some sort of imminent threat, you know, you cannot read miranda rights and establish that but they said basically that if you -- you can continue to question, you should continue to question, without giving the miranda rights if you have any reason to suspect there's intelligence that can be gained and not related to any immediate threat. and it is a very sort of open-ended and ill-defined zmg a lot of people it seems think -- think this is sort of setting up maybe a court case that could emerge from this. >> yeah. i think that -- the public safety exception as contemplate bid the supreme court 30 years ago was extremely narrow and was meant to cover only sort of immediate exigent questions about some imminent threat. and the obama administration sort of unilaterally expanded it

to permit sort of routine intelligence gathering beyond any kind of imminent requirement and that's really problematic. and -- has not been judiciarily sanctioned and should be tested in court. i think that her going for some sort of, you know, hybrid here between criminal process which shouldn't permit this kind of exception and a form of preventative detention borrowed from the -- sort of guantanamo paradigm. that's a very dangerous hybrid that we need to be careful to prevent. >> i mean, it is -- seems like there's almost a -- a middle ground the administration is trying to establish. we have, you know, lindsey graham, for instance, coming right out and saying hey, send him to guantanamo, treat him as enemy combatant. that's one of extreme of this. then have you the pure let's just treat this as a criminal case and like any other criminal case. it seems like what the administration is trying to do

is move in the direction of treating this as a criminal case but knowledge that -- let's face it, the politics of what lindsey graham came out and said the other day, the idea of -- this guy -- let's treat this as a different sxas resonates. >> i'm not sure it is a political question. a lot of the memos written by the obama administration is not a partisan question to me. it is a legal question. think you will see a lot of republicans more libertarian minded raising questions and democrats more -- with the aclu and they are going to raise questions. i don't see this as blue-red. you are right. this will be complicated because there are senators, like lindsey graham and john mccain, pushing them as enemy combatant and put him at guantanamo. he is an american citizen. though he is being monitored by the fbi and considered a terrorist by most of the public, it is complicated when it comes to the legal issues. that will become the political line. where will people land on that? >> unfortunately you are right and it is also a political -- partisan political issue at the

same time. what the administration is trying to do and had -- in way this is good because we are finally going have a public discussion of these issues and it is terrible because it is going to get conflated with can we try to convict this guy which the answer is definitely yes, we can. there's going to be a forensic trail that doesn't matter what the guy says or doesn't say. at some level people need to calm down. but at the same time, you are trying to balance intelligence needs. you know, the example i keep using is the underwear bomber where using this procedure on the underwear bomber did lead to some leads in malaysia and pakistan and other places. and at the same time, you are trying to constantly push back on this lindsey graham argument which intuitively sounds great. well, the guy tried to blow us up. he may have -- he may -- we don't even -- you know, we don't have from any evidence but may have been affiliated with some group that has sworn to do us marm. the other point that has not been getting made over the last couple of days is the military hates this enemy combatant thing.

they say that some punk 19-year-old who blew people up with a pressure cooker does not deserve the same status of a soldier we take prisoner in war. sort -- contrary to what you might think, actually some of the people that are the biggest opponents of the idea of military commissions of guantanamo are the guys in uniform who would have do the work. >> i think political issue is that you still -- have you the -- you have this cadre of people that emerged around benghazi. calling for the enemy combatant status which is ridiculous and you have a situation where you have on real difference between these two brothers, i think. i'm not saying that the deceased brother should be denied his rights were he to be alive either but the assumptions that anything that we have learned about the youtube channel of the older brother or any of the trails that have been -- he has left, applies to the 19-year-old, is really problematic. and so there's so much evidence.

there's so much good evidence, so many good things that the legal system can do with this and -- it is -- it will be a shame if we are having a really politicized-done partisan polarized conversation. >> i do want to get more into that. there is an interesting -- we have a trial that's going on right now or was going on million last week involving bin laden's son-in-law. i think there is an interesting question raised what happened that could relate to that. i want to get into that after this. so now i can help make this a great block party. ♪ [ male announcer ] advair is clinically proven to help significantly improve lung function. unlike most copd medications, advair contains both an anti-inflammatory and a long-acting bronchodilator working together to help improve your lung function all day. advair won't replace fast-acting inhalers for sudden symptoms and should not be used more than twice a day. people with copd taking advair

may have a higher chance of pneumonia. advair may increase your risk of osteoporosis and some eye problems. tell your doctor if you have a heart condition or high blood pressure before taking advair. ask your doctor if including advair could help improve your lung function. [ male announcer ] advair diskus fluticasone propionate and salmeterol inhalation powder. get your first prescription free and save on refills at advaircopd.com. [ laughs ] up high! up high! [ sighs ] [ chuckles ] yo, give it up, dude! up high... ok. up high... ok. high! up high!!! ok ok that's getting pretty old. don't you have any useful apps on that thing? who do you think i am, quicken loans? [ chuckles ] at quicken loans, our amazingly useful mortgage calculator app allows you to quickly calculate your mortgage payment based on today's incredibly low interest rates... right from your iphone or android smartphone. this great tool answers your home loan questions

organizes your results, and lets you calculate with the confidence of a rocket scientist. you can even take notes and add photos of your favorite homes! it's the 21st century way to make your next home refinance or purchase easy. download it today from the app store or google play... the mortgage calculator by quicken loans... one more way quicken loans is engineered to amaze. ♪ is engineered to amaze. and do you know your... blooa or b positive?? have you eaten today? i had some lebanese food for lunch. i love the lebanese. i... i'm not sure. enough of the formalities... lets get started shall we? jimmy how happy are folks who save hundreds of dollars switching to geico? happier than dracula volunteering at a blood drive. we have cookies... get happy. get geico. fifteen minutes could save you fifteen percent or more.

there is a lot, i think, that has do with boston that hopefully will not be politicized and can sort of be discussed and exist outside of the political realm but there are some political issues i think might extend into this and one that i was talking about before the break there involves an issue playing out right now with the trial of -- civilian trial going on of -- osama bin laden's son-in-law. what happened in the last week with that trial is -- he has lee public defenders assigned to

him. they the h to tell the judge because of the sequester we are now forced -- each of us, to take 5 1/2 weeks off at some point this year. we will be furloughed for 5 1/2 weeks each. the judge agreed and said we will now delay the trial until, i think, january 2014. that's when bin laden's son-in-law will now go on trial. i guess it raises the immediate question to me, this -- this second bomber, suspect now in custody is going to be relying on a public defender and i wonder if there will be an i shall through as well. >> politically, both sides have been looking for some way to play sequester to their advantage and i -- it is -- it is going to, you know, no one will be able to resist this at a certain point. people have been fairly heroic about it so far. but there's going to be an interesting question about which aspect of sequester you sort of like to link to these events versus which, you know, for example, public defenders are not necessarily the first thing that anyone thinks of when you say we need to get more money to

the national security. it is going to get very politicized and in a very way that doesn't reflect the -- the -- bad, dumb reality of sequester across the board. >> but you were talking about dan coats, i guess is maybe seeing this as an opportunity to partially get around the sequester. >> sure. to watch the homeland security republicans and democrats and appropriations committee and the house and senate because, look, both parties were uncomfortable with the sequester. you are going see republicans trying to reinstate some funding for how the justice department investigates bombs and for different kinds of national security things. and projects. the problem for republicans is they fought hard on the sequester and went to the conservative pass and said we will cut this much from government. they got cheered by the base. if they reinstate, some of this defense funding or some kind of funding for national security, they will have to find other cuts or else there could be an internal revoeltd in the republican conference. >> i want to point out fast the whole key here is that the cuts that it would be popular with the base to reinstate are the

defense cuts. but defense cuts don't pay for the investigation, don't pay for homeland security, don't pay for public health, and you know, if god forbid there was a biological component to this. publicly possible to reinstate and what's relevant to what we are -- what is going on in boston totally unrelate. >> right. then don't pay for local public health and don't pay for the ems teams and the hospitals and all of -- you know, the things that we are applauding we applaud the facts we applaud the cops and emergency workers and doctors and nurses. health technicians in the hospital, all of that, has been a crucial component of what has been great in the response to -- and kept people alive, obviously. and those are the kinds of things democrats are going to be pointing to. barney frank already done a good job making that case earlier this week. >> one thing about funding, i think a lot of times this is about program funding, the discussion. first responders, i think -- there will be pressure on state legislators as well. local, politicians, to get funding back. not only congressional question

for cops and firefighters. >> to bring it back quickly to the legal question. there's -- no way that the accused could or should be classified as an enemy combatant. we are not at war with chechnya and so we shouldn't be thinking about military commissions or indefinite detentions. these are extra constitutional ill legitimate systems of justice. he should receive a full and fair trial and -- part of that is to have politicians, responsible politicians, meeting their obligations, including -- providing ad quantity funding for a full and fair trial to make this legitimate. so the prospect that he would not have an adequate defense because of the political fairness in washington is disgraceful. >> the -- another issue that comes up that was raised this week by a pretty significant united states senator involves how this is going to affect or could affect the dee over immigration.

and we are going to talk about that after this. w york state, where cutting taxes for families and businesses is our business. we've reduced taxes and lowered costs to save businesses more than two billion dollars to grow jobs, cut middle class income taxes to the lowest rate in sixty years, and we're creating tax free zones for business startups. the new new york is working creating tens of thousands of new businesses, and we're just getting started. to grow or start your business visit thenewny.com since aflac is helping with his expenses while he can't work, he can focus on his recovery. he doesn't have to worry so much about his mortgage, groceries, or even gas bills. kick! kick... feel it! feel it! feel it! nice work! ♪ you got it! you got it! yes! aflac's gonna help take care of his expenses. and us...we're gonna get him back in fighting shape. ♪ [ male announcer ] see what's happening behind the scenes

at duckth [ male announcer ] see what's happening behind the scenes want to invest in something that gives you many happy returns? invest in the lives of children by being a teacher. there's nothing as rewarding as watching kids succeed and knowing you had a hand in it. you'll want to be a teacher. the more you know.

so it didn't take long for one u.s. senator this week to take the events in boston and link it to one of the hottest debates on capitol hill in american politics. let's listen to senator chuck grassley. >> given the events of this week, it is for for us to understand the gaps and loopholes in our immigration system while we don't yet know the immigration status of people who have terrorized the communities in massachusetts, when we find out, it will help shed light on the weaknesses of our system. how can individuals evade authority and plan such attacks on our soil? >> the immigration question politically, you know, looking until about a week ago, it was looking like critical mass really had been reached for comprehensive immigration reform where had you major republicans led by marco rubio and out there embrace thing plan and it looked like emdemocrats rallying around it and you will get enough republicans where it is not going to die away in 2007.

but it is fragile. because there are's so much sensitivity and within the republican party of this. robert, i guess that grassley statement gets to the question here, will the sort of hard-line opponents of immigration reform and the conservative movement, will they be able to latch on to this the way grassley did there and scare off the sort of swing republican voters who -- the members of the senate and house who were maybe ready to go for this but do not want to mess with the republican base. >> one thing i have been struck by the immigration debate, there is media frenzy and lot of attention on marco rubio and the president thinking immigration reform and gang of 8 plan is moving ahead. when you talk to chuck grassly and senate and the chairman chairman of the house, there is no impetus to start moving forward on this. this was so fragile that boston knocked it off its rocker a little bit. it is going to be very hard post-boston with all the national security concerns being raised towards immigration to have something moving forward or the senate floor any time soon. if it does move forward i think

you will have a lot of republicans raising reservation. >> just from a fact-based point of view -- i'm not naive enough to think this matters but i want to say it once. national security professionals want to know who is here. having a status to legalization and decreasing the number of folks who are here out of stat us, decreasing the number of people who are hiding from authority, who might be afraid to go to authorities if someone they know is doing something they don't -- you know, national security professionals are wildly in favor -- >> the argument. >> yes. so ideally boston should -- i understand that it is not going to. i'm not naive but boston should be pushing this in the other way let's hurry up and get a handle on this situation. and i was really hardened to see rubio and schumer come out and both make that argument on friday. you know, everything you say is right. and it is -- going to -- >> i sense this wave of hesitation in the republican party. that they -- interested in immigration reform but now you just see theeningses rising within -- >> we don't even know, you know, okay, this case in boston

involves two immigrants who were here legally. granted asylum status a decade ago. one was naturalized and another a delay that popped up. where is the breakdown that would make everybody say whoa, let's not talk about -- >> right president not anything do with what we were talking about. chuck grassley was being deeply dishonest. he has enormous resources, one was naturalized and the other was denied because of the fbi concerns about him. this is plain politics. the republican party is stuck now. are we going to play to the base of fear, fearful white people, fearful other people who are really are unsure about the other or are we going to be a forward-looking party that says we cannot write off latino voters for the next 40, 50 years and -- stay a national party and that -- you know, the rubio approach was starting to say

let's move forward and we might not win latino votes. even if we do this in the next ten years. but we -- we have to think about our children and grandchildren of republicans and -- that they are -- they are going to want to have a fighting chance with this new american population. there was that forward-looking approach and then there's just -- i'm sorry, that knee-jerk fear is the republican magic -- >> i -- >> it is not fear -- >> bob -- >> fear of national security concern. >> a little bit of both. raising that fear of the other. >> it is a little bit of both. >> your national security concerns so often come down to fear of the other. let's be really clear about that. >> right. >> i have to cut somebody off here. it is going to be you. i want to hear what you have to say right after this. there, i s. how did i know? well, i didn't really. see, i figured low testosterone would decrease my sex drive... but when i started losing energy and became moody... that's when i had an honest conversation with my doctor.

we discussed all the symptoms... then he gave me some blood tests. showed it was low t. that's it. it was a number -- not just me. [ male announcer ] today, men with low t have androgel 1.62% (testosterone gel). the #1 prescribed topical testosterone replacement therapy, increases testosterone when used daily. women and children should avoid contact with application sites. discontinue androgel and call your doctor if you see unexpected signs of early puberty in a child, or signs in a woman, which may include changes in body hair or a large increase in acne, possibly due to accidental exposure. men with breast cancer or who have or might have prostate cancer, and women who are or may become pregnant or are breastfeeding, should not use androgel. serious side effects include worsening of an enlarged prostate, possible increased risk of prostate cancer, lower sperm count, swelling of ankles, feet, or body, enlarged or painful breasts, problems breathing during sleep, and blood clots in the legs. tell your doctor about your medical conditions and medications, especially insulin, corticosteroids, or medicines to decrease blood clotting.

so...what do men do when a number's too low? turn it up! [ male announcer ] in a clinical study, over 80% of treated men had their t levels restored to normal. talk to your doctor about all your symptoms. get the blood tests. change your number. turn it up. androgel 1.62%.

we are talking about how boston may or may not be peaking

immigration. >> i agree that the grassley and others are using this as a platform, attempt to push some pre-existing agenda, which i think we should be really wary about and in light of some of lessons after 9/11 that sort of the use of patriot act and climate of fear to get policy changes and just to -- address this, argument on the merits. obviously, this had nothing to do with their immigration status or broken immigration system. it is an act of criminal depravity or mental instability senator combination. that's not a function of where they came from. we have millions of hard-working honest, law-abiding immigrants here. and the political debate in washington is to encourage more of that and obviously mcveigh,

the shooter in sandy hook, were not immigrants. we need to be mindful of what is really going on here. >> and there was a -- i thought -- i think a lot of people were watching the uncle give that press conference or just kind of come out and talk to the cameras on friday and there was this extraordinary statement of how he loves this country and how ashamed she. joe, you wrote a piece about this, that struck me about the -- the shame that immigrants feel when somebody from their group is sort of -- you know, sort of held up like this as a public enemy. >> it is such a classic story that you want to prove that you belong here and that you love this country. but that there's this group shame when someone in your group does something wrong. and, you know, it is -- i -- irish catholics have always been afraid of the taint of the violent crazy drunken irish. in somebody emerges on the stage there is that shame. you don'ts are always -- on the lookout for -- you don'ts who are doing wrong. and -- feeling that kind of group shame. italian neighbors growing up were always -- it was -- you

know, heyday of the mafia was sort of off the hook. and it was sort of like, oh, you know, all italians are not like this. you see this uncle speaking for the chechen community and saying please don't tar us all with this brush. it just felt so american. not anti-american or un-american. >> yeah. no, you know, listen, polish jokes are okay if my family is telling them. if it is anybody else, watch out. anyway, i want to thank heather of the national security network. and bahar. the senate's 46 no votes on background checks, every name, every vote, after this. with the spark miles card from capital one,

bjorn earns unlimited rewards for his small business. take these bags to room 12 please. [ garth ] bjorn's small business earns double miles on every purchase every day. produce delivery. [ bjorn ] just put it on my spark card. [ garth ] why settle for less? ahh, oh! [ garth ] great businesses deserve unlimited rewards. here's your wake up call. [ male announcer ] get the spark business card from capital one and earn unlimited rewards. choose double miles or 2% cash back on every purchase every day. what's in your wallet? [ crows ] now where's the snooze button? i love to golf. ♪ [ grunts ] yowza! that's why i eat belvita at breakfast. it's made with delicious ingredients and carefully baked to release steady energy that lasts... we are golfing now, buddy! [ grunts ] ...all morning long. i got it! for the win! uno mas! getting closer!

belvita breakfast biscuits -- steady energy to do what i do all morning long.

statistic everyone watching this show has heard a thousand times by now. 90% of americans say they support universal back ground checks for gun purchases. that includes an overwhelming majority of republicans, gun owners and, yes, nra members. and, yet a proposal to close the gun show loophole and create a universal background system died in the u.s. senate this week,

falling short, well short, of the 60 votes needed to surmount p filibuster which prompt ad stream of outraged denunciations of the upper chamber. there is a problem, though, with leaning on that 90% stat and makes the politics of gun control seem incredibly simple and incredibly easy. this logic, every senator who voted against background checks, should now be in grave danger of facing a popular uprising in losing his or her seat. the truth is that few of the senators who voted no this week will pay any political price. the fact that they may all get away scot-free. some voted yes may end up suffering at the polls. intensity has something do with this. nra crowd is more likely to vote on guns and guns alone. the real reason is there a huge gulf between the responses voters give pollsters on individual policy questions and how voters actually respond when those policies are enacted. when, in other words, the policies are filtered through the partisan political system. i think you know how this goes. think of health care. just about every individualite

them the affordable care act is very, very popular. obama care itself, well, that's a different story. there are democrats, lot of democrats, that probably lost their seats in 2010 because of their party's embrace of it. similar story on guns. ask about background checks and everyone is for them. ask about broader attitudes towards guns and it is a different story. should gun laws be more or less strict? public opinion split right down the middle. the partisan political system invariably distorts tissue being debated and encourages voters to think tribally and philosophical philosophically, filter background checks through this and it gets more complex. saying this week's vote was not an easy vote for many senators. this is not to let anyone off the hook. if we are going to understand exactly why an idea as simple as universal back ground checks can't get through the senate now we need to zoom in real tight. that's what we will do for the remainder of today's program. from here on in, we are going to go one by one through every

single senator who voted no this week. all 46 of them. we have categorized them according to the specific forces and incentives that drove their actions this week and that drive their actions in general. multiple categories probably apply for many of the senators and we will do our best to acknowledge this as we go along. you may want to set your dvrs. some of the stats may go by too fast to catch. lori was ejected from this week's senate vote after yelling shame at senators. political consultant and former deputy state director for then senator hillary clinton. we have a lot of names to get here. fortunately love the two-hour show on weekends. we have a lot of time to do it. we will start with one story that we can use as a template on set this up. that's jeff lake. he was a no vote this week on background checks. he is a freshman senator from arizona, just elected last fall. he will not face the voters for

another six years. so theoretically there is time to cast a vote that may be difficult and have voters forget about tonight the future. he still voted no. the sort of amazing this about jeff flake is what happened yesterday, yesterday "the new york daily news" broke a story. they were given a letter, handwritten letter, that jeff lake had written to the mother after victim of the shooting last summer and had written his office with a personal me for him -- for a meeting with him and to get him to support background checks. she got a form letter in response. and then flake's office found out what she had been asking. they had him write a personal letter. the personal letter was released yesterday. in it he says you and i -- he thanks her very much for the story. and you i may not agree offering here. but strengthening background checks is something that we agree on. so that letter to conclude she received a commitment from jeff flake to vote yes and yet, when the vote happened, you know, he was a no vote. i guess i'm trying to understand

what -- forces are that would have made jeff flake vote no. he's from a state that's sort of a swing state. little bit more republican than democratic but trending on the democratic side. the rise latino population. it is a state with an established gun culture. arizona is the home of barry goldwater. mr. conservative. famous bookin about goldwater pick rick pearl stein. on the cover is goldwater holding a rifle. there is about arizona political culture there. lori, you were lobbying the senators in their offices and you had contact with make's office. can you tell us about how that went? >> you know, his staff was responsive to us and most situations. and i think that they just tow the party line, rhetoric that's ancient and old. we want to look at, you know, background checks and see and how they are going to alie and who they are going to apply to. we don't want to inconvenience gun owners. you know. i find that just laughable,

frankly. background checks work. the system is in place and they are working now. in certain situations and with sales by federally licensed dealers. let's apply them to all commercial sales and categorize and get to those people who are categorized as prohibited owners and stop those persons who are dangerous and do harm to others and get a background check on all buyers. i don't understand strengthening the background check and not applying it in all commercial sales makes no sense what over. >> quickly, we are coming to the end of the hour. robert, you followed politics at capitol hill. what's your take on flake? why do you think he was a no vote? >> hi breakfast with pat toomey. he thought there was a lot of misinformation out there. influenced the gun owners pressuring the senators. both democrats and republicans were peeling real heat from the for block in a lot of these

states. >> we are one down, though, and we are 45 to go. we have an hour to go. we are going to get to a lot more names and have a lot more time for all of this. we have the first major category will be coming up. the would have, could have, should have senators. we will name them and why we gave them the label after this. , and you'll dump your old duster. but don't worry, he'll find someone else. ♪ who's that lady? ♪ who's that lady? ♪ sexy lady, who's that lady? [ female announcer ] swiffer 360 dusters extender cleans high and low, with thick all around fibers that attract and lock up to two times more dust than a feather duster. swiffer gives cleaning a whole new meaning. and now swiffer dusters refills are available with the fresh scent of gain. the battle of bataan, 1942. [ all ] fort benning, georgia, in 1999. [ male announcer ] usaa auto insurance is often handed down from generation to generation

because it offers a superior level of protection and because usaa's commitment to serve the military, veterans, and their families is without equal. begin your legacy. get an auto-insurance quote. usaa. we know what it means to serve.

at tyco integrated security, we consider ourselves business optihow?rs. by building custom security solutions that integrate video, access control, fire and intrusion protection. all backed up with world-class monitoring centers, thousands of qualified technicians, and a personal passion to help protect your business. when your business is optimized like that, there's no stopping you. we are tyco integrated security. and we are sharper. ok s o i' 've been having with greek nonfat yogurt, loaded with protein 0% fat that thick creamy texture, i was in trouble. look i'm in a committed relationship with activia and i've been happy and so has my digestive system.

now i'm even happier since activia greek showed up because now i get to have my first love and my greek passion together, what i call a healthy marriage. activia greek. the feel good greek. ♪ dannon hello from new york. i'm steve kornacki. robert costa of the national review. joan walsh from salon.com. we say we are going to name names here. the first category we are going to get to, again, we are talking about the people who voted no last week in the senate. there was the head -- get 60 votes to overcome this fill buster and the ones that said let's not overcome the fill buster and let it go here. we have -- first category is would have, could have, should

have. these are the ones that kind of flirted with it. we will start with senator chambliss from georgia. he's going to be retiring in 2014. then we move on to -- i had to get my list here. tom coburn from oklahoma. next up is -- this dean heller. republican from nevada. lamar alexander, republican from tennessee. bob corker, also a republican from tennessee. and john hoevin. johnny isakson. roger wicker from mississippi. there are a couple of reasons why we have these guys on this list. all of them voted yes. there was an initial filibuster attempt to stop the debate on background checks. these guys all voted to overcome that fill buster and at least allow the debate. so at least on some theoretical

level, you look at roger wicker, put him on there and found no evidence that he was really interested in voting for the back ground check, from a -- sort of very conservative state. he has an a-plus rating from the nra. he did vote for this. some of the others, though, he did vote to get to the debate. some of the others, though, really did flirt with background checks. one that stands out the most there is tom coburn. tom coburn spent, you know, a long time negotiateding with chuck schumer and looked like this was going to be the big republican get for schumer and was going to get a very conservative oklahoman and this was how background checks would get through. and -- trying to figure out why tom coburn changed his mind, one incident sticks out to me and it was at the end of january when a -- another group -- the -- gun owners of america. it was another group that's more conservative than the nra. took out an ad and -- in oklahoma and that just -- basically said is tom coburn about to make a deal with the devil? chuck schumer.

and -- it speaks to the politics on this because we think of the nra and as this is the pressure group keeping senators in line. the nra is facing pressure from the right. i don't think that this gets that much attention. the gun owners of america is a group that is the right of the nra and for the nra to keep its relevance and conservative politics, it is almost forced into a more absolutist posture and i think coburn might be an example of how that dynamic plays out because -- to establish its relevance, the -- this group goes to the right of the nra and scares tom coburn. >> that's right. >> there is one way, i think, manchin got through. he had to be the singular bill on background checks the way coburn really messed this up was as did chuck grassley and cruz is that they started proposing alternatives. when you start proposing alternative events and legislation, that gives an out for a lot of republicans. they say i'm going on judgment open that ship and not this ship. they were always -- alternatives froeting out there and that really diffused the vote for manchin and brought it down.

>> and there are others here that -- saxby chamblin is interesting. this a guy that's was in the house before he was in the senate and you had a back ground check vote that came up in 1999 in the wake of columbine and against that. in one way he is being consistent. saxby chambliss said he is not running for re-election in 2014. the last year two he began to break with sort of conservative orthodox and maybe because he freed himself from the pressure of running for re-election and he is one of the guys that's out there repudiating grover norquist saying i don't have to vote with norquist on everything. he voted to allow debate on this and -- you know, he can't pay a political price if he votes for back ground checks. he is not running for re-election. >> the nra gave everybody a pass on voting to -- open debate. that was like okay, you get -- you get off the reservation this one time. here is your pass. i got to come back to us on the actual legislation. there wasn't a lot of risk to them to do that. it made them, they hoped it made

them look good with the survivors and the grieving parents. it was -- they were -- they were at least open to debate. i don't know that anybody on that list, except for coburn and maybe chambliss, was going to be a get. >> i guess what -- with comes up being dean heller. we talk about nevada being the state that is emblematic of the country. it started to go democratic in big numbers influx of latino population. it was a little surprising to me that -- dean heller was against -- a guy that's not going to be up for re-election for a while. if it is -- a tough vote in nevada in 2013. maybe by 2018 this is an easy vote. >> to your point earlier i think what's happening is they are not taking as much of a risk october the first vote but when the rubber meets the road, they are going to tow the party line, as you were saying before. one of your earlier points, what i-found to be interest sing not just the nra, but will are these -- so many other pro-gun groups that are out there right now and we have seen an increase

in spending. not just in terms of direct giving to candidates but in the ground game. and in the -- lot of money being spent to talk to individual voters. real grassroots operation, if you can call it that you can replace the donation but it is harder to replace a vote. we have seen a lot more activity on the ground game. >> what was your experience lobbying some of the names? >> frankly, just towing the party line. you know, same old rhetoric and lies. i had one staffer, you know, suggest to me a background check was going to cost $125. that's ludicrous. dealers don't charge that and the competition among people to get -- do the background checks would define the price for the fee. also, suggested that he wouldn't be able to advertise, you know, selling a gun on a church bulletin. that's clearly not true. it is factually incorrect.

a gun show or whether it be internet sales or classified ads. you know, they just -- you know, ratchet up the rhetoric. passed the lies on and stuck to this party line that was defined by lies. >> did you get the sense when -- when somebody -- throws that back in your face, do you get the sense that they had internalized that and believed that was what this bill would do? did you get the sense they were just kind of going through the motions and got to tell them why we are against and it this is what we will go with because that's the script? >> sadly going through the motions. the staff in most situation are sympathetic when they bump into someone like me. i was with roxana green whose daughter was shot and killed in tucson. 9-year-old christina taylor. i was with people from aurora. i was with people from newtown and virginia tech. and day-to-day shootings. we are trying to have a logical conversation about let's apply a background check to all buyers. we do background checks in so many walks of life.

up can't get a puppy at the pound without a background economic. you can't volunteer in church without a background check. these are not going after law-abiding citizens. yet, we heard over and over and over again these canned lines. you know, these canned conversations, this rhetoric. frankly, repeating, you know, some of the even more extreme lines from the groups to the right of the nra. i don't like to give the gun lobby the power that some of the staff and some of these people who did ultimately vote no give them. you know, gist think they are capitulating to some imagined fear. you know, the gun -- gun lobby is not as powerful as they want everybody to think. >> i just want to go through a couple more of the names and just highlight a few more. the one that jumps out is lamar alexander. the story on lamar alexander fascinated me because had is a guy that got his start in politics working with howard baker. baker is a moderate republican. old school moderate republican from tennessee. governor of tennessee. he develop ad very pragmatic

reputation there and ran for president in 1996. he was sort of a mini version of what john mccain was in 2000. the media loved alexander when he ran for president in 1996 because he was the reasonable pragmatist. he has been in the senate more than ten years. i can't tell you how many lamar alexander stories i have written over the last ten years. secretly he is fed up and frustrated and wants to cut a big deal. i have never seen it happen in ten years. he was -- you know, robert, he was -- for a few years there, he was positioning himself for a leadership spot in the senate. you can kind of understand it in that context. he wants to be a team player. he lost that race to trent lott. i'm wondering -- what's lamar alexander doing? >> dropped out of the republican hierarchy last year. he's just -- another senator of the -- lamar alexander is up for re-election in 2014. a lot of republicans have the primary fear. there is -- one of the bigger groups in the primaries is the nra. i think going back to heller and a lot of the other republicans who raised reservations, came

down because there is a lot of buzz out there on the right about a national gun registry. and even saw in senators' statements, citing the national gun registry. when you talk to toomey, in the bill, it makes it illegal to have a national gun registry but there is that fear on the right that if you have more back ground checks that are expanded it would lead to that and i think that's really what helped. >> had it is. we talked about filtering it through the partisan political system. that's how the message gets distorted. if you take that poll and 90% support background checks and subjected to a drumbeat of that information, that 90%, that's going to drop. >> right. >> i will tell you in a lot of the conversations that i have had and a lot of the interviews on public radio that have had -- regarding the -- national registry, there is a tremendous amount of fear out there and it is -- interesting because people would call in and you can see folks even e-mailing me afterwards. it is part of the script. i mean, their message sing very tight on the issue and it is generated tremendous amount of fear. >> they are lying but people

genuinely believing it. i had a fun experience of driving cross-country and listening to gun talk radio. the big talk was that, yes, this leads to a national gun registry but also if you want to just lend your gun to your brother-in-law, you can't do it. this legislation would prohibit it. the good news about b this week is you had somebody like joe manchin, publicly and pat toomey, more privately saying the nra is lying here. they are lying about all of these things. but they are -- the good people who are making these phone calls, truly believe the far when they lie about what is in the bill. >> and -- part of this is that you -- have very influential public figures, members of the senate, who have wide influence with the right and who are sort of leading this messaging. we call them conservative leaders and tea party leaders. we are going to name their names and we are going to name the people who we think are most afraid of them politically. that's after this. ♪

lookin' good, flo! feelin' good! feelin' real good! [ engine revs ]

boat protection people love. now, that's progressive. call or click today. there is no mass produced human. there is no mass produced so we created the extraordinarily comfortable sleep number experience. a collection of innovations designed around the only bed with dualair technology that allows you to adjust to the support your body needs - each of your bodies. you'll only find sleep number at one of our over 400 stores nationwide, where right now, save $400 on the only memory foam bed that adjusts to each of you. plus special financing on all beds! sleep number. comfort. individualized. the day building a play set begins with a surprise twinge of back pain... and a choice. take up to 4 advil in a day or 2 aleve for all day relief. [ male announcer ] that's handy.

nine down and 37 to go. we are going through each of the 46 no votes on background checks last week. the next group we are going to get to, we are calling these national conservative leaders and you can call them tea party leaders. rand paul from kentucky, we have ted cruz from texas. like lee and from utah and tim scott from south carolina. the common thread has to do with primaries. one of the stories of the republican party in the obama era has been the rise of the conservative primary.

these candidates, you look at rand paul in 2010, ran against mitch mcconnell's happened-picked candidate and in kentucky. and won. ted cruz last year, primary in texas, ran against rick perry's candidate, favorite of the establishment, and won. mike lee took out a three-term incumbent at a convention and in utah in 2010. and tim scott, he's -- he was just appointed to the senate but he was -- appointed to replace jim demint. jim demint wanted him to get the appointment and he was a guy that was and still is actively involved in stirring up these primary challenges. you know, the way i look at it is to the extent there is a lot of pressure on the rank and file members, this is where it is coming from. >> right. i think that -- i mean, i will just say -- i think scott is a place holder. and he will do the bidding of demint and whoever else is pulling strings there. and the inning thing about cruz is that in that exchange where -- dianne feinstein and how -- you know, they went at it

in the debate and sort of -- sort of berating her on her knowledge of the constitution which i thought was just ridiculous. but i think you are right. the rank and file is also very fearful about what is coming and -- paul's ready for a president. so -- that's the platform he is trying to do. >> my job is to cover these guys on capitol hill and i see them almost every day. talk to them a lot of. national review, conservative magazine, reporting on them. when you talk to them, you don't hear about the political aingele, primary angle. what they lead with and what they close with is the second amendment. and for them it is a principled argument. they are making a constitutional argument. have you mike lee, ted cruz, smartest lawyers in the senate and come at it from that angle. it is easy to read politics and into this. behind the scenes in public, these guys believes the a second amendment issue. >> yeah. i would give them that much decreed. i don't like them but i think that these -- they truly believe what they are saying and -- cruz was really dismissive to dianne feinstein and that -- that's

political. disrespecting dianne feinstein does wonders for the tea party in texas. they won their primaries. they are sitting there and feel that they are in a position of power and that they believe what they believe. what they do, then, is radiate fear and -- to other people who might be inclined to be more rod rat but don't want to see the ted cruz of kansas or whatever state come and knock them off. >> and that is a -- perfect segue to part two of this block and we have singled out some of the no votes who we think are motivated by that exact thinking that joan just described. i don't want to be the next mike castle of delaware losing to christine o'donnell. let's go through them. roy blunt, republican from missouri. we have dan coats from indiana. elected in 2010. john corn yn from texas. lisa murkowski from alaska.

and pat roberts from kansas. they are not all up in 2014. i wanted to put roy blunt on there because roy blunt was the model of the candidate who -- he won his seat in 2010 and did not have much of a republican primary challenge but his primary was early in the season in 2010. and when these other events started happening, christine o'donnell started winning in delaware, there was a lot of talk from tea parties we should have gone after roy blunt. a republican leader in the house and bush era and revolting against the bush era excesses. i think that -- you know, i look apartment blunt as guy perfect pettily in fear of that happening to him in 2016 and the same thing about dan coats. coats had a difficult primary in 2010. more than that, when dan coats was in the senate the first time he was dan quailylquayle's succf evan bayh. dan coats voted for the brady bill and crime bill in 1948 which lud the assault weapons ban. his long-term history with the nra is not good. the nra opposed him in his 2010 campaign. this is a guy that almost, you

know, lost his primary in 2010. has to be fearing that for the future. and so i sort of see that it worked there. look at pat roberts and there's always this civil war in the republican party in kansas. and pat -- conservative sides led by sam brownback, the governor is very much winning now. and pat roberts, just a few weeks ago got the knee-jerk reactions. it seems to me if you are thinking about 2014 in sam brownback's kansas, you know, this is where you are going to be. >> i think that -- they are looking at that primary and that may be drive something of their decisions. i think that the bigger picture cannot be ignored. you know, in 2014, these people will be facing a voter and in a general election. and i think voters are smart. i think -- i think the ground has shifted. we know that between now and 2014, you know, doing the math, americans are smart. there will be 19,000 more gun deaths between now and 2014. americans know -- we will

remember that. they are aware of it and the ground shifted in a way i don't think that these senators are really, really facing. you know, from the groundswell that i hear, and in a state like virginia. we have 26 new gun violence prevention groups in virginia. 26. since newtown. they have got -- they have to -- be thinking about the long game and that's the voter at the ballot box. >> has the ground shifted in ballot states? >> that's the big question. >> virginia is very purple, admittedly. we are shifting greatly. i hope and pray, you know, i can't predict, who can predict. i think that the voters and what we are hearing and what we are seeing on the ground, you know with grassroots groups, with moms and with women, and i suggested that this is going to be an issue with women in 2014, and 2016. we are, you know, protective of our children, protective of our families and our neighborhoods and communities. and we want the gun violence to stop. you are either with us or against us other purple state that's for is colorado. colorado has changed. you saw hickenlooper going

from -- well, this was an act of evil and we can't prevent acts of evil to after -- newtown saying what -- what was i thinking? and really changing a tune. state by state organizing and work that you are doing will be really for. your point is correct. red states that -- >> look at pennsylvania. pennsylvania p, pat toomey, he co-sponsored -- has to represent the suburban philadelphia areas that are more moderate and more centrist and looking ahead re-election in 2016. pat roberts comes up for rei will and exhas a real deep blood-red state and those voters in the general election aren't the same those suburban philadelphian people are. >> if you look at the map in 2014, you look for those purple states where maybe there's somebody who voted against background checks, running the purple state, there aren't any up in 2014. that adds another twist. one-third of the senate. we are going to keep naming the names. we have two more categories coming up and look at republicans that are in blue and swing states and republicans who may be seeing themselves as politically overextended next.

we had never used a contractor before

and didn't know where to start. at angie's list, you'll find reviews on everything from home repair to healthcare written by people just like you. no company can pay to be on angie's list, so you can trust what you're reading. angie's list is like having thousands of close neighbors where i can go ask for personal recommendations. that's the idea. before you have any work done, check angie's list. from roofers to plumbers to dentists and more, angie's list -- reviews you can trust. i love you, angie. sorry, honey. ♪ [ indistinct shouting ] [ male announcer ] time and sales data. split-second stats. [ indistinct shouting ] ♪ it's so close to the options floor... [ indistinct shouting, bell dinging ] ...you'll bust your brain box. ♪ all on thinkorswim from td ameritrade. ♪

this category, we are calling them the overextended. we think that they see themselves as politically overextended when it comes to the issue of guns. that's why they voted no on background checks last week. the names, let's start with marco rubio. republican from florida. lindsey graham, republican from south carolina. rob portman, republican from ohio. and the reason for this, atlanta brave the obvious, marco rubio is point man for republicans on immigration reform. this is a hugely sensitive issue in the republican party. rubio is taking the lead on that and he's all over the place on conservative radio trying to, you know, trying to calm their fears. he were then to take on guns the theory would be now he has a real problem especially as it relates to the 2016 ambitions. when you look apartment lindsey graham, graham is one of the perfect pettily endangered

republican challengers. up in 2014. maybe he is doing immigration. graham had this line that i think summed it up. i will paraphrase it. lindsey graham profiled the "new york times" and talked a little bit how he strays from the republican reservation but will pick his spots to really go after the administration like on chuck haguel and benghazi. he said basically for me, whenever you are attacking the president, whenever you are attacking obama, it is good politics. he is very mindful, i think, of the base and of not always being seen as a traitor. rob portman made news a month ago because he supports gay marriage. one of two republicans in the senate. he was the first one to say he supports gay marriage. he's already hearing threats of a 2016 primary challenge. maybe he is overextended, too. lori, you were saying that's maybe a big part of what is going on in the senate now. >> yes. in a perfect world they wouldn't have to pick between these social issues facing them all --

you know, one year or two years. and, you know, prior to an election. they are facing a lot of social issues coming their way and picking and choosing p.m. sadly they are making mistakes and making a mistake on -- you know, the issue i care about which is saving lives and stopping gun violence. they are make something sort of political calculus decision where can i -- where can i go and in which direction on -- which of the social issues and which one is going to get me the least to push back in a primary. >> i ask you, have you new york expertise. we saw a mini version of this in new york when it came to gay marriage. and you had -- had you a bunch of sort of wealthy gay marriage supporters telling republicans that it is safe to vote for this because we will protect you and -- not necessarily able to. >> great article in "new york times" about how governor cuomo really -- realizing how for this was to him. basically marshalled a lot of the support in the lgbt community to convince republican senators that if you vote for --

vote the way we want to you vote, we will try to shield from significant primary challenges. some conversation that i have been hearing right now about the president's role in the -- in the gun debate is he didn't do -- didn't show exactly the same kind of leadership. we can debate that and -- whether or not he actually did that. that was -- if you look at the difference from a -- sort of -- a point of view, the fact that governor cuomo was able to do that and be able to shield some of the folks who were on the fence or who were really concerned, that is what i think carried the day and i don't know if the president -- i want that story to come out. i want to know that -- >> i want to defend the president here. because i think that maureen dowd has deeply stupid cole number "the times" today. any time you are citing the american president and west wing, how politics should go, when you are a political writer and you have sources a good writer and good reporter.

she blames the president. and i think he had four democrats that he could have brought over but even if he got those four she up to 58. he could have gotten coburn. no way they get coburn at this point. the politics of the internal politics of new york and andrew cuomo is -- poll polarizing figure in some way. nowhere near the polarizing figure obama is. the idea that obama could have won over more republican votes i think is preposterous. >> i think that the critique from the left on the president, you talk to republicans, who were supported toomey, they are played the president was on the sidelines. the minute the president weighs into this debate, we can't deal with this. they wanted toomey. a great story i saw schumer working with pat toomey. before the press conference, i will stand with you at the podium, you and manchin. toomey said please, i don't want schumer standing by me at the podium because politics about this is so uneasy. i don't think the president would have done a lot to win

republican votes. they have only so much room to roam on the right. if you start to tiptoe towards the center, the grassroots really start to pay attention. it gets delicate. that's why i think you see rubio, for instance, never going to get out on guns and immigration at the same time. >> we have -- we have a couple more we want to get to. there is a second category. this is an inning one. blue state and swing state republicans who voted no on this. we will start with rob johnson, republican elected in 2010 in wisconsin. conservative republican. kelly ayotte from new hampshire. we have chuck grassley from iowa who i believe is in his fifth term now. he has been there forever. some of these are really interesting. we hear a lot -- there is a lot of attention paid to democrats in red states. we are hearing about ainge fwrish the democrats in red states. i look at rob johnson, i understand wis swiss a state

that's capable of electing republicans under certain circumstances. rob johnson seems way out of line with where wisconsin is. >> i would like to say that he is. but there is a part of wisconsin -- you know, like all states are somewhat purple. wisconsin is -- is blue in some ways but it has a strong gun culture and ron johnson scratch it is itch of a certain kind of wisconsin voter that -- it is not just upstate. it is -- some of the -- suburban ring milwaukee counties as well that are very, very conservative on this issue and others. there is a real split in wisconsin. >> a swing vote from new hampshire because, remember, new hampshire in 2010, white republican, everyone wins republican. in 2012, new hampshire went almost entirely blue. it is a real democrat state now. she was on the fence very nervous about her state turning left. maybe she would have considered this. she did not but was vote that maybe could have counted. >> in bill clinton's memoirs, a really interesting passage. new hampshire is one of the states, think back to 1994, there was a democratic

congressman from new hampshire who had voted for the assault weapons ban and the gun groups went after him. bill clinton wrote in his memoirs that -- about how he went up to new hampshire after the election and was in a diner and was talking to all of these hunters and gun guys and just after that election. bill clinton said, you know, you guys really -- you really were the ones that took a swing at us. new hampshire is one of the states that yeah, definitely, a group -- five miles from new hampshire, this is my own personal new hampshire observations. you drive, you know, 20, 30 miles in new hampshire, you get into there is a -- a gun tradition in new hampshire. >> i think -- i think that suggesting that there is a gun tradition automatically means that they are against background check is just false. the gun owners i know, my husband included, and everybody that, you know, i know that owns a firearm is for a background check. i think we lump them together in some sort of category as a gun owner. gun owners generally speaking are responsible. they are law abiding. they go through a background check when they purchase their

firearm and want everybody else to go through a background check. to speculate that because a state like wisconsin, you know, a tradition of gun ownership, those are the very people that understand the responsibility and this t lethality of a firearm and don't want the criminals. those persons dangerously mentally ill giving them a bad name. i would speculate that, you know, we are going to see a different sort of gun owner emerge. there is -- serious but small percentage of gun owners who are radical and -- you know, just fire, you know, and threaten and -- let their voices be heard. i suggest that they are a minority of gun owners. >> the biggest category we have to get to is the rank and files, biggest category we have. we are going through that after this.

life is full of surprises except when it isn't. that brings us to the anti-background senators that followed the script perfectly. they are senators that don't

always make a lot of noise. then joy sterling ratings from the nra and would not even vote to allow a debate on background checks to keep a low profile to vote the party shrine for many of them a ticket to lifetime incumbency. they are the rank and file republicans, they are a big part of the equation of doom for background checks. and there is not a whole lot more to say them them to except to get on record with who they are. and they are senator john barrasso from wyoming. senator john boozeman from arkansas. and senator chad cochran from mississippi. senator mike crapo from idaho. senator mike enzi from wyoming. senator den fischer from nebraska. senator orrin hatch from utah. senator jim inhofe from oklahoma. senator mike johanns from nebraska. senator jerry moran from kansas. senator jim risch. senator sessions from alabama. senator shelby from alabama. senator david vitter of

louisiana. up next, we will good the two party leaders that voted no technically but they are both in very different places. when our little girl was born, we got a subaru. it's where she said her first word. (little girl) no! saw her first day of school. (little girl) bye bye! made a best friend forever. the back seat of my subaru is where she grew up. what? (announcer) designed for your most precious cargo. (girl) what? (announcer) the all-new subaru forester. love. it's what makes a subaru, a subaru.

i love to golf. ♪ [ grunts ] yowza! that's why i eat belvita at breakfast.

it's made with delicious ingredients and carefully baked to release steady energy that lasts... we are golfing now, buddy! [ grunts ] ...all morning long. i got it! for the win! uno mas! getting closer! belvita breakfast biscuits -- steady energy to do what i do all morning long. belvita breakfast biscuits -- i found our colors. we've made a decision. great, let's go get you set up... you need brushes... you should check out our workshops... push your color boundaries while staying well within your budget walls. i want to paint something else. more saving. more doing. that's the power of the home depot. behr premium plus interior paint, only at the home depot and starting at $23.46 a gallon. constipated? yeah. mm. some laxatives like dulcolax can cause cramps. but phillips' caplets don't. they have magnesium. for effective relief of occasional constipation.

thanks. [ phillips' lady ] live the regular life. phillips'. would more no votes. these are from the two most prominent members of the senate. party leaders. they technically both voted no. one of them comes with a gigantic asterisk. we have mitch mcconnell, harry reid. and we have mitch mcconnell. he's the republican leader from kentucky. the giant asterisk i want to get out of the sway harry reid was for back ground checks. he had to change his vote because of procedural issues that will allow him technically potentially to bring up background checks, bring up the bill later if they are ever to get 06 votes for it. i think harry reid is worth mentioning in this discussion because harry reid has evolved quickly on tisch uf guns. reid comes from, i'm going to say it right, nevada. nevada, you know, traditionally gun state. he cultivated support from the

nra in 2010. they stayed neutral as soured him on the nra a bit. he expected more help than he got. other issue with harry reid, he is the leader of the democrats in the senate. this is a priority for the party. on top of that, harry reid is in his 70s and up for re-election in 2016. there is an open question of will he try to stay for six more years or is he at the point he is like i'm going finish out my term and not going to have worry as much for running for re-election of nevada. with mitch mcconnell, we are talking about somebody that's the leader of a party where -- in the senate where all of that sort of -- such a heavy influence from conservative activists and -- filtered in the senate and seen that in his own backyard. in kentucky where rand paul beat mcconnell's candidate in 2010. mitch mcconnell, vulnerable to the republican side in 2014. one has not emerged. we were talking early about can we find senator up for re-election who voted no on

background checks pop the republican side mitch mcconnell is the one that comes to mind. his poll numbers are not going -- not been good in kentucky. barely won in 2008. he will not face ashley judd who would have been an ideal opponent for him. he could get a serious challenge challenger. we will see how kentucky responds. mcconnell is an interesting test on this for within the party. and also general election. >> right. what's interest sing when you talk about democrats who voted no, and whether or not that's going to embolden democrats to go out in huge numbers and challenge them, the big issue there is to -- a fine line you have to walk. you don't want to put mitch mcconnell in power, vis-a-vis harry reid, and give the republicans more seats than they have currently. i do think he is vulnerable. as we were discussing before, i think that he's fairly safe. that's -- i mean, i don't -- i don't really see any downside in any of this for him. safe seat. >> let's talk about kentucky for

a second. there's some gun control groups that run ads against mitch mccon ol' the issue. one where you do poll background sxheks very popular everywhere. stay with the gun tradition. how do you think this plays in kentucky in 2014. >> i think that -- the voters will are look very carefully at that time record. what he has done and how he led and -- what his position is on this. and i think that what the voice -- they will let the voices be heard at the ballot box. in my world, you know, this has been, you know, a major shift and major change. there will be voters who will vote -- this will become a one-issue voting issue for them. and -- women in particular, mothers in particular, they are going to look at who did the right thing and did the wrong thing. did they go -- did they support background checks. if they didn't we are going to vote you out. we don't xwar parties. i live in eric cantor's backyard virtually. my book club, i would say is rather conservative. every single woman in my book club is with me. we will vote on this issue. >> this is rand paul's kentucky

now. this is -- mcconnell in kentucky, but -- he has a life long a rate prosecuting the nra. he was never moving towards toomey. he's the biggest threat to mitch mcconnell. i don't think it is the biggest threat but potential primary challenge there are a lot of libertarians now in the republican republican party. mitch mcconnell knows that and that influence is thinking. >> we are down to the final four. we spent a lot of time talking about republicans. there were four democrats who are against background checks this week. we are naming them after this. [ male announcer ] progress isn't about where you've been.

♪ it's about where you're going. the new ram 1500. best-in-class 25 mpg. ♪ north american truck of the year. ♪ the truck of texas. better residual value than ford and chevy. it's the fastest-growing truck brand in america. guts. glory. ram. guts. glory. everybody has different ideas, goals, appetite for risk. you can't say 'one size fits all'. it doesn't. that's crazy. we're all totally different. ishares core. etf building blocks for your personalized portfolio. find out why 9 out of 10 large professional investors choose ishares for their etfs. ishares by blackrock. call 1-800-ishares for a prospectus, which includes investment objectives, risks, charges and expenses. read and consider it carefully before investing.

we reached the final four. final four no votes on background checks. heidi heitkamp from north dakota. senator max baucus from montana. senator mark begigh and senator mark pryor from arkansas.

there is a specific discussion. heidi was just elected. probably the biggest upset in senate race last year. won at north dakota. nobody thought she would win out there. lot of national democrats put their money into that race. she does not drarts put their money there. she does not have to face the voters for six years there. if anyone can get away with politically bad vote, it would be her. there was a scathing op-ed in the "washington post" from bill dailey, the former white house chief of staff. i'm watching guns destroy my city. i gave money to heidi last year. i want my money back. i don't any democrat giving money to her or anybody else who votes no on this. the defense of her, we'll have the discussion, what i have heard proposed is that she had signalled privately, if they were at 59 and needed 60, 60 break the filibuster and move this along, she'd be there. she didn't want to be the 55th

vote where it still fails and gets ads run against her. she wobbling to pay the price politically if the vote mattered. that's the story i've heard. >> okay. let's just talk about some democrats who did the good tough thing. like mary land rue, she would have been like to be the 60th vote. she voted for it. joe donnelly did the same thing. john tess tral, makes max baucus look like a coward. i feel terrible dumping on the one woman, but she deserves it. she had an opportunity to be a profile in courage and have five years to zigzag in ways that you may need to in a red state. but to do the right thing. women's groups will hold this against her because it's becoming so much of a women's issue. >> who is a pressure group, bill dailey or the nra?

>> she wouldn't be where she is without national democratic money. >> i'm not evening -- let's take the private stuff i've heard at value and say she was going to be the 60th vote if they needed. i think the dell emma for democrats is if you don't invest in her and doesn't win that seat, you will have a republican who will never vote for it. this way you have somebody who if you really need it, is there. >> i look at mary landrieu in terms of their nominate scores, they're trending more conservative than the rest of their party. landrieu, she should be a profile in courage in many respects. baucus and pryor, to me, that's pretty indefensible as is heitkam p. baucus has been in the senate since 1978. baucus was there in the '90s and he voted i believe it was for the assault weapons ban in 1994. he faced the voters in 1996 and

there was an ad that the montana shooting sports association ran when he was running for reelection in '96 that said all in favor of gun control raise your right hand. it was drawing of adolf hitler saluting and ban baucus, not guns. he nearly lost his seat. the closest reelection that he's had. i look at that and say that's the classic exam a am when we say something that's popular at an ab tract policy level and gets filtered through the system, that's a perfect illustration of the max baucus voting got trickled down to that. he nearly lost his seat. >> but he did win. and john tester did the right thing. again, he has more time. max baucus -- >> there are democrats who are making noise about not just stopping the flow of money to these democrats but challenging them in primaries next year. going into arkansas and al

alaska and challenging begich, if you want revenge, i understand. but if a national group comes at these guys from the left and takes them out in the primary, can you actually win that seat? >> i think so. i think the issue clearly has shifted the politics on this. sometimes i think and like i said to the guests here, i'm green to the politics of a lot of this. a lot of this is speculation on my part. but i am back home in virginia. i am in oak creek, wisconsin, i've been to aurora, colorado. i've been out with some of the survivors on different -- on this issue in different venues. it's very different out there in the america and back home in america. it's this inside the beltway kind of conversations are relevant, but frankly, they're not relevant back home with a lot of americans. we want leadership on this and we want our elected officials to be on the front side of history.

you know, we know where we're determined to make it go and we want people who will lead. if they're not, we're going to do something about it. >> that's a place to wrap this up a little bit. the lessons that the political system has delivered to politicians over the last gun control in 1994 we can talk about. so far the lessons delivered and reinforced are this is a dangerous vote if you're not in a blue state. this is a vote that can be twisted, contorted, distorted that can hurt you at the polls. the activism that you're talking about, lori, you have michael bloomberg willing to throw tens of millions of dollars to the gun control side, if that dree it's a different lessons and incentives, this could be a different discussion. >> if the president goes in, which he signaled he would probably do and use 2014 to campaign on this issue, you combine that with a lot of the money the mayors are throwing into it, in particular mike bloomberg, how effective will

that be, i hope it is, how effective will it be in states where it's a cultural issue. do you have the effect of turning people off? >> that moment on saturday night live where you had toomey and manchin standing there and president obama, the after play and said you want to talk about gun control. manchin said we prefer not to. it's hard for republicans and democrats who are moderate, anyone to get out there and talk in red states where there's a heavy gun culture about background checks. it's about infringing on that second amendment right. >> that's why what lori is doing it is important. it's going to change the culture as well. i want to end on an optimistic note. we got 54 votes for this. if the senate wasn't screwed up with the filibuster rules this would have won. >> that's the challenge for activists and people interested in this issue. make it clear to politicians it's not 1994 anymore. i have four names to name.

thank you to lori haas, former aide to hillary clinton, joan walsh from salon.com. thanks for getting up and thank you for joining us. we'll be back next weekend, saturday and sunday at 8:00 eastern time. up next is melissa harris-perry on today's mhp, terror in boston. the crisis is over. the politics begin. that is melissa harris-perry, she is coming up next. we will see you next week here on "up." acceler-rental. at a hertz expressrent kiosk, you can rent a car without a reservation... and without a line. now that's a fast car. it's just another way you'll be traveling at the speed of hertz.